User talk:Mark Staedler

November 2019
Hello, I'm Longhair. I noticed that you recently removed content from Reading Recovery without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Longhair\talk 09:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Reading Recovery, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Longhair\talk 09:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Reading Recovery, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Longhair\talk 09:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Reading Recovery. Longhair\talk 09:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Longhair\talk 09:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Your edits to Reading Recovery
Hello Mark Staedler. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to Reading Recovery, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Mark Staedler. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Longhair\talk 09:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)